12 BULLETIN 1043, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 
An examination of the total damage to given crops indicates, as 
might be expected, a variation in most cases greater on a percentage 
basis than the variations in annual totals for alf crops. These 
variations are particularly marked in the case of wheat, barley, 
flaxseed, and rice. They are smallest in the case of corn, owing 
largely, no doubt, to the general distribution of the corn acreage in 
the United States. 
Lastly, an examination of the figures representing the damage to 
given crops from specified causes shows the relative variations to 
be even greater. Thus the variations in damage to the wheat crop 
from deficient moisture range from less than 18 million to 295 million 
dollars, while those of cotton from the same cause range from 43 
million to nearly 389 million dollars. On a relative basis the varia- 
tion in damage to individual crops from some of the less important 
causes would be still more striking. In the case of hail damage to 
cotton, for example, the variation is from 1-| million to 17 million 
dollars. 
Deficient moisture and excessive moisture might also be expected to 
have an inverse relationship, the damage from one of these causes 
tending to be relatively light in years when the damage from the other 
is relatively heavy. This is well illustrated by the two columns 
given to these causes. Little, if any, relationship of this kind is 
noticeable, however, between the two causes of frost and hot winds 
which, in a modified way, also represent opposite extremes. 
Extended comment on the tables seems unnecessary. It should be 
emphasized, however, that the figures for crop damage in terms of 
dollars represent, in part, a theoretical loss only. While an increase 
of 10 or 20 per cent in the yield of a given crop will increase the 
gross income of an individual farmer from that crop by the same 
percentage, this relationship between increase in yield and increase 
in gross income does not hold when all or even a large proportion 
of the entire farmer group is considered. In this case increase in 
yield will, of course, materially affect the total supply of the com- 
modity in question, which naturally affects the price. No attempt 
has been made to allow for this fact in translating the quantitative 
crop damage into terms of dollars. Table 3, which shows damage to 
all crops in the common denominator of dollars, will, therefore, be of 
more value for purposes of making comparisons between the amount 
of damage to different crops and in different regions than as a measure 
of actual diminution in the income of the farmers by reason of 
damage to their crops. 
